AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, J
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 26.02.2018 in FA/82/2016 filed before the State Commission by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 24.08.2016 in his complaint No.58/2013.
The facts necessary for determining this revision petition are that the petitioner had purchased seven policies from respondent No.1 under the "Unit Linked Pension Plus" scheme and paid a total of Rs.25.35 lakhs. On reviewing the position in November, 2011, when he found that the value of his fund was around 63% of the cumulative premium invested, he realized that he was misguided by the officials of respondent No.1 and that the policy did not suit him. He thereafter filed a complaint alleging that he was misguided by the officials of respondent No.1 and that the vital features of the plan of those policies were not disclosed to him. He officially filed a complaint before the IRDA on 20.09.2012 and the complaint was taken up by the Ombudsman who returned the complaint on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. Thereafter, he filed a complaint before the Grievance Redressal Cell of respondent No.1 and thereafter he filed a complaint in the year 2013 before the District Forum.
The District Forum dismissed the complaint on merit stating therein that the complainant had taken the policy plan with his eyes open and that he had also been given an option to retrieve from the said plan, within 15 days, which he did not exercise and that at the time when he purchased the Unit Link Pension Plan, i.e., the profit of this plan was directly connected with the conditions of the stock market and that in the year 2007 when the policy was taken, the stock market was in full boom and it was subsequently that there was a recession in the market. The District Forum also held that the petitioner being a highly placed officer of the Government of India, cannot be presumed that he is not aware of the policy plan and that he was not an illiterate person so that it can be presumed that when he purchased the plan, he was misguided. Upon his retirement, he had taken the policy. His plea that he was misguided by the company officials was rejected.
In Appeal also, the State Commission did not find any evidence in favour of the petitioner to prove that he was misguided while buying the said plan.
During the arguments, the petitioner had failed to point out any piece of evidence from the record which, even by preponderance, that he was misguided and that the findings of the fora below are perverse.
The scope under the revision petition is very limited as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed as under :-
"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."
From the above discussion, it is apparent that the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.